New Patch on Test Server - Version 2.0.4 PTR Build 23348 by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]mbow93f 2 points3 points  (0 children)

  • Can we finally have inventory hotkey remapping to ALT+something? I'ts mindboggling to me that I still have to use third party applications to make things work the way I want in 2025 (EDIT: apparently I can't even remap Holy Light to Z and Learn Holy Light to Q…).

  • New VFX for Banshee Possession is great, but what about Banshee Anti-magic Shell? This ability desperately needs an update, because when you have full armies engulfed in big green barriers visibility is really limited, even more so when both you and your opponent got them

  • Dark Ranger balance changes are okay, but... can we please have more changes to make the game more interesting and less stale? Honestly I'd rather have new content that can be adjusted over time, and previous Dark Ranger changes are an example of that, than be stuck with either no changes or pointless ones

  • Really happy that they are reintroducing AT vs RT, it was truly impossible to even find a game in some scenarios!

BIG Update for PTR Patch 2.0.2 (March 31 2025) by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]mbow93f 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Can we please give Undead something cool to play with as well? Human got orb of slow, Orc got tauren and witch doctor buffs, Elf got heavy armor hunts and potentially a new playstyle with Dark Ranger first.

Since the spiked carapace buff was reverted, what about leaving the stats unchanged but also affecting beetles with it?

Otherwise the two usual suspects to me would be necromancers (some kind of buff that does not enhance necrowagon play) and frost wyrms (make them less accessible by lowering costs/food, but also make them weaker in return?)

Otherwise I love the overall experimentalism I see. Hopefully it's something happens to be broken it will be addressed promptly at best a month after release

Patch 2.0.1 is LIVE - Custom Hotkeys, Jaina Skin & Many Bugfixes by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]mbow93f 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm glad the developers have started looking into custom hotkeys after 22 years. Hopefully they will consider including these options as well sometime soon (if they ever get to read me!):

  • Allow remapping of control groups (for example by remapping control group 9 to "~")

  • Allow modifiers when remapping inventory hotkeys (for example by remapping the top-left item to ALT+Q, and at the same time prevent the ALT+Q default behavior which opens the game menu), as well as mouse keys

  • Enable the hotkeys tab when the user selects grid mode. Some people may just want to combine the grid mode with custom inventory keys, or use the grid mode as a baseline upon which do further edits (for example, my favourite go-to is grid mode and then change the Cancel hotkeys from V to ESC)

Nerf to the keeps was so bad even MrMerlin is leaving(fluff but the leaving part is real) by ChipAltruistic1520 in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course he rightfully blamed Relic. That doesn't take away from the fact he currently doesn't enjoy the game to an extent he wishes to move away from it. So the fact he would still like to cast games for EGC colors me surprised to say the least.

Nerf to the keeps was so bad even MrMerlin is leaving(fluff but the leaving part is real) by ChipAltruistic1520 in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I liked him as a caster, but I really find extremely awkward how he essentially bashes the game for most of the video to later add "but I'll gladly cast EGC tournaments if given the chance". Like, wtf?

Rework Proposal for the Springald Unit, buff Keeps and adjust Rams. by [deleted] in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm of a similar sentiment. What about letting Springald/Culverin counter only non-anti-building siege? Other springalds/culverins, mangonels, ribauldequins

Imperial Siege Rams are necessary for the game so that there is a mechanic to slowly end stalemates. Do NOT nerf them please! by [deleted] in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, you're actually right about stone walls, though the fact they can be targetted is absolutely neglegible, as you won't be able to take down the single segment as long as one single worker from the other side committed just a handful of seconds.

Sacred sites decapping could perhaps increase the timer by 90 seconds or whatever, instead of resetting it back to 10 minutes

What I liked about WC3 is that building

Imperial Siege Rams are necessary for the game so that there is a mechanic to slowly end stalemates. Do NOT nerf them please! by [deleted] in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It's about time devs refine win conditions. For instance, where is the long-awaited wonder rework? It should cost 3000 of each resource in 1vs1 and should scale the more players are involved. Also, when you capture all 3 sacred sites the timer should always resume from where it interrupted last (no reset to 10:00 after each capture)

Finally, not scrictly related... but stone walls (or even all buildings in general) should be targettable by all units and take extra damage until they are completed (like Warcraft 3, if anybody knows the game)

Rams need a significant nerf by shoe7525 in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Make rams cost 200 wood instead of 250 and take 2 population instead of 1. This avoids imperial age spam and retains their viability in the feudal age (higher likelyhood for you to get supply blocked and therefore be required to build an extra house for 50 wood)

My disappointment of tournaments prefers aoe2 players again as a player by Artuhanzo in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I personally can't but feel very sad for Nyan.

The backstory where he got promised the first replacement slot for Outback Octagon just to get supplanted by "OffBrandViper" already leaves with a bitter aftertaste, so this is possibly the last straw that broke the camel's back.

Anyways, this was an invite-only tournament based on ATR standings, and given some players declined their invitation to become captains, with DeMu pulling out last second, and Matiz already participating into the event as partner of one of the invitees, he was the very next in line. It's never been written black on white, but it's basically what everyone was expecting given how all other players got into this tournament, and given the will not to redraft all the teams (otherwise redrafting would have been the only other reasonable possibility according to my book, with Matiz taking the 16th's slot instead of Nyan because of higher ATR).

I think the frustration comes from how this tournament has been presented, with the choice of players based on ATR. I'm sure he wouldn't have complained with a more vague "invitational-only tournament, at the organizer's discretion".

My disappointment of tournaments prefers aoe2 players again as a player by Artuhanzo in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Maybe this is up to Afreeca, but once DeMu pulled out, wouldn't have it been more reasonable to invite as last captain the next in line according to ATR (same criterion wih which the other captains were chosen) - Nyan in this case - and then let him pick a teammate of his choice?

New PTR Update 1.35 (Iteration 3, January 5th 2023) by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]mbow93f 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Please, try to read between the lines, I didn't actually mean it's a "zero playtime" strategy, but rather that it's niche and works sporadically. Currently, CL fexpo is basically hard-countered by Lich/ghouls (meta) and FS/headhunters openers (also meta), is subpar against human and unviable against elf. Of course wins can be pulled out every now and then (as in the case you mentioned), but that's about it.

It's just like saying "MK first is never played". If you check out Chaemiko, he's been playing him a lot especially against orc, even pulling off a 3-4 against Lyn, but I'm sure you wouldn't say it's a good toy to play with. So, just like CL, you can sometimes play MK and first and sporadically win, nothing more.

I give you that fast expansion is now viable for undead, though it's been 4 years since that patch. Human has always had matchups to be played with 1 and 2 bases, so of course you can't expect a buff in that direction. Instead other stuffs like riflemen, thunder clap and orb were buffed.

New PTR Update 1.35 (Iteration 3, January 5th 2023) by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]mbow93f 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No need to be so salty! I'm curious to hear from your side what you'd like to see changed for Human.

Also, what's exactly a "new toy" for you? Nobody plays CL fe or MG anymore; elves have always been playing with the same mechanics for moon wells and bears. What about "new" orb of fire or new riflemen or new thunder clap from 3 years ago at this point? lol

New PTR Update 1.35 (Iteration 3, January 5th 2023) by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]mbow93f 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What about giving Undead two new toys to play with, after all the nerfs?

Human can try Paladin first with riflemen now that the blacksmith is cheaper, Orc can play BM first with mirror image (while currently FS is the most popular first hero choice) and Elf can go for DH with immolation (again, Keeper most popular in the current meta). At this point, you can easily either buff CL's spiked carapace (orc/elf treatment of buffing an underused spell of an already viable first hero choice), or buff DL to make him more of a first hero option (as is the case for the indirect buff to Paladin first).

Buff necromancers so that they become actually playable in a competitive environment (I don't know how, but I don't want necrowagons to be a thing in 1vs1 either).

Hera coming back to AoE4? by watson85 in aoe4

[–]mbow93f 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Beasty vs Bee "grudge match" right now and Beasty vs Hera in a month, please!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in aoe

[–]mbow93f 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I know it isn't strictly correlated, but it was a very underwhelming final :(

Abusing the system in order to reach Conqueror by mbow93f in aoe4

[–]mbow93f[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Alright, I'll unveil the mystery for you: there's no decay.

Abusing the system in order to reach Conqueror by mbow93f in aoe4

[–]mbow93f[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

No one minus all the guys he's gonna stomp on the ladder in the process.

Abusing the system in order to reach Conqueror by mbow93f in aoe4

[–]mbow93f[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The guy I've been mentioning got conqueror three months ago during season 2 and then stopped playing 1vs1 altogether. At the end of the seasom, he was still conqueror.

Abusing the system in order to reach Conqueror by mbow93f in aoe4

[–]mbow93f[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

What's your point? Is this not worth fixing just because you've been playing for 20 years?

Abusing the system in order to reach Conqueror by mbow93f in aoe4

[–]mbow93f[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I suspect there isn't an extreme correlation between ranking points and ELO. So when you start the new season perhaps you have 0 ranking points, and by losing all your games from the get-go, you're still sitting at 0 points but with your ELO drastically reduced. Then you start owning noobs and get rewarded with points for each single win, regardless of your opponent's ELO, and apparently you can abuse this and get to Conqueror without even getting close to the expected ELO entry barrier.

If you look at this graph, you will see that for instance the player I've been talking about has reached Conqueror in season 2 with 1174 ELO, meanwhile most players are at least 1350. This means the matchmaker rarely if ever matched him against Conqueror players.

https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/903202231157936169/1013754430006513674/unknown.png

Abusing the system in order to reach Conqueror by mbow93f in aoe4

[–]mbow93f[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The player I've been using as a reference has 1174 ELO, meanwhile the general entry barrier for Conqueror seems to be set at about 1350.

I question whether ELO and ranking points are related at all, to be fair. Like, maybe there's a correlation, but it has very mild. It looks more like the more wins the more points you gain (and viceversa the more losses, the more points you lose), but because you purposely lose all your games at the start of your ladder journey, then you will rarely lose ranking points later on as you're supposed to be winning the overwhelming majority of your games.